Talk:Emma Nicholson, Baroness Nicholson of Winterbourne

Structure

The article read (and still does to some extent) a bit like a list so I've reorganised it a bit. Will do more work on it once I've done some more research on EM.

Rsloch (talk) 15:41, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Emma Nicholson, Baroness Nicholson of Winterbourne. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20061212124919/http://laprimogenita.it:80/Documenti/romanadopt.pdf to http://www.laprimogenita.it/Documenti/romanadopt.pdf
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20080622025012/http://www.publications.parliament.uk:80/pa/cm/cmallparty/register/memi373.htm to http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm/cmallparty/register/memi373.htm
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20090310010730/http://www.dialoguefoundation.org:80/?Lang=en&Page=29 to http://www.dialoguefoundation.org/?Lang=en&Page=29

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 23:38, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Blatant COI regarding Transgender Issues section

On Twitter, Baroness Nicholson has suggested that authors biased toward her cause become editors for the purpose of removing information about her and her opinions on transgender issues. This violates (WP:COI) in my opinion, and I would suggest that the Transgender Issues section be restored and only edited to include factual information, which it appeared to do before the most recent revision. I am also going to submit a request for the page to be protected. Amekyras (talk) 22:41, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks @Amekyras:. As the person who originally added the content, I agree it seems the section has now become potentially subject to an edit war. After a first (admittedly justified) removal of the section by @NedFausa:, I added a further citation to the Telegraph. Removals after that seem, to me, to not be based in policy. Every claim was cited, and citations to the subject's social media should have been permitted under WP:TWITTER, as they were only sources on actions taken by the subject. Since some of the removals were explicitly transphobic themselves, and since Nicholson and others are openly encouraging people to remove this content, I'm grateful to @Creffett: for protecting the page but would ask that the content is added back - or that a more thorough discussion on it takes place. I dispute the claim by @Roscelese: that it violates the NOR policy, unless the mere act of looking for a source now counts as research. I also dispute that it was poorly referenced, as the sources I included were 4 national and 1 regional media outlet, the Gov.uk website, a national LGBT charity website, and the subject's own twitter account. At best, I feel the second paragraph regarding the ReSisters tweet could have been removed. The content on writing to the Chair of M&S was publicised by the Baroness herself, and reported in the national media (the Telegraph as cited, it was also reported in the Daily Mail which I'm aware is frowned upon as a source). JustLucas (talk) 23:35, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

JustLucas, the problem as I see it was that the use of Twitter went beyond reporting factual statements and into synthesis (and pretty much anything about Twitter's reaction was original research), and while we permit the use of Twitter to support statements about the subject, this was overuse of it (and the ongoing controversy was sourced almost exclusively to Twitter). I do not intend to restore the controversial section myself, and I ask that a thorough discussion take place here and consensus be reached regarding its inclusion and sourcing. I also remind everyone that controversial content in biographies of living persons should be supported by independent secondary sources, and we are not here to publish the news - this appears to be an ongoing event, and covering it in the article can wait until reliable sources have published about it. creffett (talk) 23:45, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

I dispute multiple aspects of the proposed section. I shall list them separately to facilitate discussion of each.

First, the section as removed includes three references to tweets by @Baroness_Nichol. As self-published sources on themselves, these violate WP:TWITTER. Moreover, they fail to meet the WP:ABOUTSELF exception because they involve claims about third parties. Such references cannot be used, and content supported by them must be excluded.

Additionally, as administrator creffett points out, these references constituted WP:SYNTH, which is wholly unacceptable. NedFausa (talk) 00:04, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Second, the sentence supported solely by reference to a tweet by @ReSistersU must be excluded because said tweet violates WP:SELFPUBLISH, which directs: Never use self-published sources as third-party sources about living people, even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer. (Emphasis in original.) NedFausa (talk) 00:17, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Third, the reference to a 24 May 2020 story by Max Stephens for The Telegraph is impermissible because, by its own admission, the story relies on a letter attributed to Baroness Nicholson by The Mail on Sunday, sister paper to the Daily Mail, which Wikipedia has deprecated as unreliable and therefore should not be used as a source—not even indirectly. NedFausa (talk) 00:30, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Finally, of the remaining four references, NONE mention Baroness Nicholson.

References

Thank you for considering my objections. NedFausa (talk) 00:37, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

NedFausa sums up my objections as well. In general, but especially in cases involving biographies of living people, we cannot engage in original research or synthesize sources to draw conclusions none of them contain. Nicholson's views on transgender people or issues are not notable to begin with unless reported on by reliable sources (it's not simply a question of proving that she said them - we're not disputing that it's her twitter account, but Wikipedia's purpose is not to amplify anyone's voice), and further sourcing (of, I may add, extremely high quality and quantity) would be necessary to add the "this is transphobic" spin. JustLucas and Amekyras, does this make sense?

Also, COI refers to someone editing on behalf of a company or organization with which they are affiliated. Editing Wikipedia because you saw a tweet suggesting that you should does not create a COI. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:11, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

@NedFausa: I'm afraid I have to respectfully disagree with you on your third point, with regards to the validity of the Telegraph article as a source here. If you read the latest discussion in which the Daily Mail was discussed, you can see there's pretty explicit consensus that, at the very least, there is no consensus against using the Mail on Sunday at all. In fact, though, even more specifically, JzG mentions this exact situation there in conversation with Martinevans123, and a general agreement seems to be reached that it is acceptable to cite an otherwise-reliable source that cites even the Daily Mail itself, as it is expected that it would have undergone sufficient fact-checking.

Your other points stand, except to say that I think the reference to this Tweet in particular would be acceptable, in that it does meet WP:ABOUTSELF. She's publishing a letter that she herself wrote; we can't cite her on the response Truss gave to her, but we can cite her on what she said. Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 10:10, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Naypta, something originally published in the Mail but subsequently mentioned by the Telegraph is OK, because the Telegraph has fact-checking and can be expected to have verified the claims itself. I'm not a fan of sourcing anything to Twitter, ever, but when transphobes like Graham Linehan are banging the drum for you it's not usually because you're a model of tolerance, so I'd be astonished if there wasn't something in it. That said, the usual rules apply: reliable sources or GTFO. Guy (help!) 10:24, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks all for the discussion so far. NedFausa seems to have put out the easiest list of objections to respond on, so that the flow makes sense. First, I think the tweets do meet the criteria for aboutself, or that at least not all of them don't. The second tweet, as pointed out by Naypta is the Baroness Winterbourne herself publishing a letter she wrote. That seems to be the most clearcut case of aboutself I can think of, especially as the letter is on House of Lords headed paper but I cannot find a website or other location where Lady Nicholson routinely publishes these. The third tweet details her own views, I can't see claims in there about other people. I will later concede on it's removal anyway, but wanted to say I'm not sure on the specific objection raised. The first tweet, regarding a letter from Liz Truss, I will concede makes the claim that Truss wrote that letter. I think it could be removed safely, as the Baroness' later letter to the Chair of M&S referenced the reply she received ("I attach ministerial letters, ...").

On the second point, I've already said above I'm happy for that small section to be removed, however would like to clarify that the ReSisters tweet is not being claimed as a third party source about living people, it is being used to link to the tweet Lady Nicholson herself shared and added commentary to. Happy for the reference to be removed as the same material is included in Lady Nicholson's own sharing of it.

On the third point, as Naypta says, I think using the Telegraph is appropriate. They are an appropriate RS, and the second Lady Nicholson tweet is her own publication of the letter referred to by the Telegraph. I cannot conceive of any reasonable argument that there is doubt as to whether the Baroness Winterbourne said the words attributed to her, as I quoted them in the article, considering she published the words herself. I also will not concede that the Telegraph referring to the Mail on Sunday renders the citation untrustworthy. The letter is attributed to Baroness Nicholson by Baroness Nicholson, the fact it was also attributed to her by the Mail on Sunday does not stop that from being true. I believe the fact the letter is being reported on in two national media outlets (one of which does not meet RS, one of which does) makes it worthy of inclusion.

On your fourth and final objection, again - I'm happy for that small section to be removed. The four sources cited there are to establish the notability and claims made about ReSisters, not the Rt Hon the Baroness Nicholson of Winterbourne herself.

Overall, I think the letter to the M&S chairman is worthy of inclusion because of it being covered in two national media outlets, the letter being sent is verifiable because the Baroness published it herself, the words from the letter as quoted in the article are verifiable because both the Telegraph and the Baroness Winterbourne published them.

Addressing Roscelese's point about COI referring to people acting on behalf of the subject, I'll accept that. I didn't name the section, however I would say that The Rt Hon The Baroness Winterbourne encouraging people ("any volunteers?") to edit the page to remove unfavourable content about herself might push it into a grey area, at least. JustLucas (talk) 10:58, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Sorry for the back-to-back edit but I did want to add that including a section on transgender issues seems particularly pertinent when 6 out of 7 written questions by The Rt Hon The Baroness Nicholson of Winterbourne (all asked on one day in April 2020) are on trans people and singe-sex spaces. Lady Nicholson has also made spoken contributions on the topic. When the section is restored, I feel the inclusion of these points would be beneficial. They speak to her professional work on the topic, along with her letter to M&S, which was on House of Lords headed paper. JustLucas (talk) 11:08, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

It's me again - there's a follow up article in the print copy of the Telegraph, Baroness Nicholson shared a photo of it. JustLucas (talk) 11:31, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

@JustLucas: Again, the tweets and letter may be verifiably Nicholson's but that fact alone does not justify their inclusion. We don't and shouldn't do a day-by-day report of the contents of her Twitter feed! Ditto for spoken contributions - she has spoken about many, many topics, so we need more than a primary source like the Hansard to be able to determine which of her views should be in the article. I had missed that the original addition actually contained a citation to the Telegraph and not just a bunch of Twitter links and synth - that at least begins to be a basis for including this view of hers, but I think we still need more than that, and either way, the spin and synth would not be allowed. I think the best course of action would be to wait a few days and see if this gets more coverage. It'll keep. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 14:59, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

I'm a latecomer to this story, only just heard about it, and have no connection with any of those involved. It's fair to say that Baroness Nicholson's views on trans people and other LGBT issues are only one small part of a lengthy political career, and arguably don't deserve their own section. That said, it seems odd that those views are mentioned in the article Damian Barr, but not this one. Biographies of politicians often include at least a small section outlining their political positions on major issues; on that basis, it would seem reasonable to include her views on LGBT issues as part of a larger 'political positions' or 'voting record' section. Robofish (talk) 17:09, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Anti trans views

I added a section about Baroness Nicholson's well reported controversial views on trans people. The entire edit has been reverted, which seems wrong to me. I'm happy to take it to Talk to get consensus on how this should be handled within the page, but I disagree that a section on this lends undue weight to the problematic and well reported nature of her views. You can see my edit here. I would like to invite others to comment on how the significant coverage of these views should be treated in her article. They certainly should go in somewhere. --Jwslubbock (talk) 17:17, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

First of all, I would remind you of the principles of WP:GF, WP:NPA and WP:CIVILITY. Comment on the content, not the editor. You're comments on my talk page and in the edit summary go against those principles, and are completely unacceptable. To the actual content, you made a WP:BOLD edit, it was reverted per the same policy, the onus is on you to explain why they are WP:DUE through discussion, to reach consensus. As previously stated, per WP:CSECTION, sections titled "controversy" should be avoided. Additionally, this article is a WP:BLP, and as such is subject to WP:BLPBALANCE. There is no justification for a section on Twitter activity in the last year to be larger than sections covering 10 years of activity in the House of Lords, or the entirety of the subject's charitable works. WP:RECENTISM needs to be considered here also. As this is a BLP, sourcing needs to be carefully considered. Three of the sources for her Twitter activity are Pink News (I include the Yahoo one here as it is a direct pull), which is a source which is considered generally reliable, but where caution is advised. As per discussion [[1]] on this source, editorial discretion can be advisable. This is a topic where Pink News has a strong editorial line, and the weight of its coverage should be considered in that context. In general, I am not sure that the Twitter activity of the subject meets the standards for inclusion. The issue regarding the Booker prize does appear to meet WP:DUE and should be relocated to the 'Other work' section. It would be better with further background information, explaining Nicholson's involvement with the Prize in more detail, and reworded as, despite the headline she was not removed from the post as much as all honouary posts were dissolved, following the controversy. Inclusion of this would obviously also include reference to the incident with Bergdoff. I would propose relocating that information. However, I have reverted the article back to WP:STATUSQUO version whilst this discussion is ongoing, until a consensus can be reached. AutumnKing (talk) 07:54, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

It is good that you are now engaging positively with this by suggesting what you think should be included, but I remain concerned that you have repeatedly removed all references to this subject from the page entirely. I will therefore put back references to the Booker position and what happened with Bergdorf in the Other Work section. I remain concerned that there has been significant discussion on this Talk Page already concerning this subject, and the result is that people keep on removing all reference to something that very much meets WP:N due to the significant coverage of it. Indeed, it is the only reason the Baroness has been in the news whatsoever for the past year, and I hope we can reach a consensus about how this topic is covered in her page. Jwslubbock (talk) 11:05, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

Again, your bad faith commenting is directly contravening Wikipedia's policies on good faith and civility. You also seem to be misunderstanding the concept of WP:CONSENSUS. I have categorically not repeatedly removed all references to this subject from the page entirely. I reverted you edit initially over WP:DUE concerns, and suggested you, as the Editor who initiated the WP:BOLD edit, begin a Talk page discussion, to gain consensus for inclusion. You reinstated your edit, without waiting for any discussion to take place, with a personal attack in the edit summary and on my talk page. I then reverted the page per WP:STATUSQUO, and made constructive comments on this Talk page, explaining why I believed some of the content should be excluded, and why some should be included, looking to gain consensus before further editing the article, per policy. Your choice to re add that content straight away is pre-emeptive, given that there has been no time for other Editors to discuss the issues, and reach consensus as is the core principle of Wikipedia. As you failed to wait for agreement on inclusion, I have further edited that contribution, as it was again disproportionate to the rest of the article. . Finally, Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia that records notable people, events etc. over history. We look at the significant and long term notability over that period, not just the last year. Per WP:RECENTISM, we need to maintain a balance of WP:DUE with the information that is included in the article. AutumnKing (talk) 13:57, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

I only looked at the Pink News opinion piece (which I believe Jwslubbock cited wrongly by saying it's Yahoo News) about "misgendered". And if the writer (Lily Wakefield) had bothered to consult the Oxford Dictionary she would have seen that Emma Nicholson may have been using the word "misgender" correctly, since it's a matter of using a word "that does not correctly reflect the gender with which they [i.e. pregnant women] identify". I approve of the policy that requires consensus for re-inserting contentious material, and Jwslubbock doesn't have it. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:35, 5 August 2021 (UTC)